Lord, Make Me Willing to Live and Die for My Convictions

Albert Mohler’s second principle for leadership is that leading is believing. By this he means that the leader is driven by beliefs that lead to action. Leaders must have passion. They must have firmly held convictions.

I want to be a leader that is known for “being willing to die—or even to live—for [my] convictions”. (From The Conviction to Lead.)

Lord, make me willing to live and to die for my convictions. I pray that my convictions are not merely stupidly held beliefs but they are grounded in my Surety. Help me to be convicted about that which should captivate my heart and to hold loosely the things that I ought to hold loosely. Make me like Luther; “Here I stand…” Give me a heart of full conviction. Amen. 

Lord, Give Me Conviction to Lead Well

I have been greatly benefiting from Albert Mohler’s book, 25 Principles for Leadership That Matters. At the end of almost every chapter I find myself crying out to God to shape me into a better leader. I figure I’m not the only one. So I thought that you might benefit from reading the prayer that I wrote in response to each chapter.

Chapter One: The Conviction to Lead

Lord, even though there is a no scarcity of leadership materials there is a dearth in leadership in our land and in our churches. Stir in my heart a passion that is proportionate to the convictions that I hold. You have called me to lead. I pray that our generation will “lead with conviction and “have the conviction to lead”.

I know that in Your Word an absence of leadership is often a sign of your judgment. Lord, would you meet us with grace? Would you transform our world through the powerful gospel? Would you set the world on fire with passionate worshippers that passionately proclaim that your kingdom comes. May I be obedient to you. Make me a leader after your heart. Amen.

Covering Up What Christ Has Already Covered

“But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to  his face, because he stood condemned...” Galatians 2:11

In other words, Peter was being a hypocrite and Paul called him out on it. Not so says John Chrysostom:

Many, on a superficial reading of this part of the Epistle, suppose that Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy. But this is not so, indeed it is not, far from it; we shall discover great wisdom, both of Paul and Peter, concealed herein for the benefit of their hearers…But when some came from Jerusalem who had heard the doctrine he delivered there, he no longer did so fearing to perplex them, but he changed his course, with two objects secretly in view, both to avoid offending those Jews, and to give Paul a reasonable pretext for rebuking him.

Looks like it was just a secret plan concocted by Peter and Paul and not a true rebuke. What would motivate Chrysostom to engage in what seems like textual gymnastics to keep it from being the apostle Peter? His argument was that it couldn’t have been as it reads because Peter showed great boldness elsewhere:

He who when scourged and bound would not [shrink a bit] in his courage, and this at the beginning of his mission, and in the heart of the chief city where there was so much danger—how could he, long afterwards in Antioch, where no danger was at hand, and his character had received lustre from the testimony of his actions, feel any apprehension of the believing Jews?

It’s unthinkable to Chrysostom that Peter could have engaged in such hypocrisy. But isn’t that Paul’s point? Why the rush to defend Peter and come up with an intricate behind the scenes plan that is no where evident in the text?

Do We Do This Today?

I laughed at Chrysostom for a couple of minutes. Then I started to see myself in him. I find myself wanting to quickly come to the defense of some of the leaders that I greatly respect. Yes, even if they something stupid and wrong or do something hypocritical. When someone “opposes” one of the dudes that I look up to my first tendency is to come to their defense.

I actually think that is a good thing. It would be much better if our first response was to defend brothers and sisters in Christ. Yet this first instinct can quickly morph into something unhealthy. When Peter is wrong, he is wrong. No need to defend his hypocrisy or make up an imaginary scenario. To do so is verging on adopting a Corinthians mindset (“I follow Paul”, “I follow Cephas”). Peter’s identity—as is ours—is firmly wrapped up in Christ. He was being a hypocrite on this point. The gospel is big enough to cover that.

Let’s thank God that the blood of Jesus not only covers us but also the leaders that we revere. When they do something silly we don’t have to dismiss everything they have ever done or no longer respect them. We aren’t encouraged to tear 1 and 2 Peter out of our Bibles just because he was a hypocrite on this occasion. In the same way we hold our leaders in their proper place as dim reflectors of the splendor of Christ.

There is no need to spend our time trying to play cover up for sins that Christ has already covered. Let’s let the gospel rebuke our leaders. But let’s also be quick to remember that the gospel that rebukes is also the gospel that covers them. 

Lessons from a Bearded-Dude Waving a Stick

“Whenever Moses held up his hand, Israel prevailed, and whenever he lowered his hand, Amalek prevailed.  But Moses’ hands grew weary, so they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat on it, while Aaron and Hur held up his hands, one on one side, and the other on the other side.  So his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.”

Why in the world is this necessary?  If God wanted to strike the armies of Amalek, display his power, and rescue Israel why did he not simply send a tornado or something cool like that?  Why does it depend on a bearded dude raising a stick in the air? 

I do not know for sure but I have a couple of guesses.  There are a couple of things that this act communicates.  Lessons that are vitally important for Israel—and remain vitally important even for us.  One thing that this story communicates is that Moses is the conduit of grace that God is going to use to lead Israel fully out of Egypt and into the Promised Land.  God works through leaders.  Leaders are important.

But the second lesson is just as important as the first—Moses is only a conduit of grace.  Even though the mission vitally depends on God using Moses to lift up his hands, Moses is still just a man that cannot hold up his hands all day.

Can you imagine trying to do what Moses was asked to do? 

Do you remember in grade school whenever the teacher for some unknown reason refused to call on you?  (Perhaps, she had had enough wisecracks).  I do.  And I remember it didn’t take long for my little hands to get tired and I had to start propping it up with my other arm.  Then I’d switch hands.  And then switch hands.  And then again.  (Now, that I’m thinking about this…come on teacher…why didn’t you call on me?) 

Well those few minutes in grade school always felt like an eternity.  I cannot imagine what Moses felt like having to hold his hand up for hours upon hours.

The Pressure of Leadership

But this is more important than getting to answer a question (or at least make a funny remark).  If Moses lets down his hands some of his people are going to bite the bullet.  That’s a lot of pressure.  Moses cannot afford to take a 15 minute break and rest his hands.  In 15 minutes a battle can be decided.  So Moses cannot take a breather. 

This helps us to kind of realize that leaders face much pressure.  Often if we “let down our hands” the movement suffers, or even worse real-true-to life individual people suffer.  So leaders get weary keeping their hands held up all day.  We know that if we let our hands down it will be for our detriment and the detriment of others. 

The Necessity of Aaron’s and Hur’s

But the reality, like with Moses, is that sometimes you just cannot do it.  Conduits of grace need to be propped up.  Even the best of men are men at best.  And that means we will have to let our hands down.  We aren’t the savior.  We aren’t the provision.  God is.  We are the conduit and sometimes conduits get weak and can’t do their job anymore. 

Thankfully, there is a third way.  Leaders can be propped up.  It’s still Moses keeping his hands up, but Aaron and Hur are standing beside him and lifting up his weary hands when he cannot.  Leaders need Aarons and Hur’s in their lives. 

I am thankful for the men and women that God has placed in my life to be my Aaron or Hur.  I have had dear brothers and sisters in Christ come alongside me in times of my greatest weaknesses and prop up my leadership.  They’ve been used, by God’s grace, to keep my weary hands from dropping.  Aaron and Hur are just as vital as Moses.

Victory is a community project! 

Jesus Did Not Call You to Quit

In the very last lines of Dave Kraft’s book Leaders Who Last he says this:

My fellow leader, Jesus did not call, equip, and put you into a leadership role to have you start and then quit, plateau, or be disqualified.  He called you to finish the race, and finish it well.  It is my prayer that you, with his help, will be a leader who lasts, a leader who will hear those wonderful words as you hit the ribbon in full stride: ‘Well done, good and faithful servant.’”

I really needed to hear this today.  Perhaps you do to.  Keep pressing on…

Ineffective Leaders

I haven’t read a book on leadership in awhile so I thought I would pick up what sounded like a good one from Dave Kraft: Leaders Who Last.  One gem that I’ve picked up so far is Kraft’s list of Seven Habits of Highly Ineffective Leaders:

1. They spend too much time managing and not enough time leading.
2. They spend too much time counseling the hurting people and not enough time developing the people with potential.
3. They spend too much time putting out fires and not enough time lighting fires.
4. They spend too much time doing and not enough time planning.
5. They spend too much time teaching the crowd and not enough time training the core.
6. They spend too much time doing it themselves and not enough time doing it through others.
7. They make too many decisions based on organizational politics and too few decisions based on biblical principles.

I have found that while many want an effective leader and one that lasts, within the church they often require him to be ineffective.  How many pastoral job descriptions have you seen that are populated by the first statement in each sentence and not the latter? 

Two Ways to Sell a Book, continued…

Yesterday I promised to “make the argument that biblical faithfulness and effectiveness are not synonymous, and conclude by urging you to focus on biblical faithfulness over against mere effectiveness.”  Promise delivered…sort of.

In one sense the above paragraph is ridiculous.  To be effective simply means to produce the intended result.  So, if your intended result is to be biblically faithful, and you are, then you are effective.  But that’s not what I necessarily mean by “being effective”. 

I’ll make this simple and not unnecessarily wordy.  You cannot control results in your church.  And if you think you can then they aren’t the type of results that you want.  There is not a formula that says if you follow this model then God will be pleased with your church and it will grow.  Yes, there are established means that God uses.  But there are men that have been ridiculously faithful (see Richard Greenham, who doesn’t even have a page on Wikipedia) and have seen little visible fruit (see the prophet Jeremiah or even Jesus). 

Speaking of Jesus I wonder what the back of his bestseller would look like.  Would it be filled with all sorts of buzzwords?  What would be his selling point?  Biblically faithful or producing mass results.  Perhaps one blurb could read:

“Jesus, once had thousands following him until he invited his audience to feed on his flesh.  Since then Jesus has a small band of loyal followers.” 

At the end of the day what Jesus was more concerned with was biblical faithfulness and not mass results.  That was the grid he used to measure his success.  And that should be our attitude as well.  Consider this from Paul:

I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.  So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.  He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor.  (1 Cor. 3:6-8)

Focus on faithfully planting and faithfully watering.  But this isn’t all the revolutionary is it.  Tomorrow I will present to you a chart showing the difference of focus between the biblically faithful model and the effective model. 

The Point of “Two Ways to Sell a Book”

Yesterday I said that there are two ways to sell books on church and ministry.  (If you haven’t read that post yet spend a couple of minutes and read it).  There are two ways to sell books because there are two different visions about church and ministry.  One vision is what I will call the Effective Model the other is the Biblically Faithful Model. 

Lest you be offended I am not intending to apply that those that are concerned with being biblically faithful are not also concerned with being effective.  Nor am I for a moment suggesting that those that desire to be effective are not at all concerned with being biblically faithful.  What I am concerned with is the ultimate aim.  Regardless of whatever lip service we might give at the end of the day what ultimately drives us is revealed by the words we use and the words we choose not to use. 

Real Words from Real Books

While yesterdays post may have been an exaggeration, many of the words I used came from actual books on church and ministry.  The selling point for one can be summed up by the word—effective.  The selling point for the other can be summed up by the words—biblically faithful. 

Now, I know that if you asked any of these authors if their ultimate desire is to be biblically faithful, they would all give a resounding yes.  I do not intend to question the heart or motive of any of these men.  But the problem is that while they would say that their ultimate desire is to be biblically faithful at the end of the day their work exposes that perhaps something else drives them. 

It has been my experience that being biblically faithful is simply assumed in many of these books.  It’s as if they say, “this is our foundation, duh!  Now, how do we grow this church for the sake of Jesus.”  So as a result the end becomes—how do we effectively reach people. 

And for proof that I am not just being a jerk look at the selling point on the books.  There is a marked difference between an option #2 book and an option #1 book.  And it is not just that they have different publishers.  They are different authors with different audiences and different visions for the church.  They have a different gauge for success and apparently so do their audiences.  One ultimately asks what is effective, the other ultimately asks what is biblically faithful.

The Point

I have a rather simple point in all of this.  I know that most of those that read my blog are people passionate about Jesus and the church.  Most of my readers want to see the church grow and want to see the church be healthy.  Many probably read some of the same books I do about church and ministry.  My goal in these posts is to convince you that we should focus our time and energy on being biblically faithful and let the Lord decide whether we are “effective”. 

In other words if you are a church leader I encourage you not to take an “effective model” type of book and try to implement it in your church.  Yes, it may “work” in their church.  Yes, it may even “work” in your church.  But just taking someone else’s “effective model” will short change you of the God-ordained process of patiently shepherding your people towards biblical faithfulness. 

Tomorrow I want to make the argument that biblical faithfulness and effectiveness are not synonymous, and conclude by urging you to focus on biblical faithfulness over against mere effectiveness…

Daggers to my heart

Every so often you read something that shoots daggers into your heart.  The words are so convicting and yet inspiring.  This is a good way to discern whether or not its true conviction or just beating yourself up out of false pride.  I think this is a legitmate dagger.  I just finished reading a blog post by Brant Hansen.  He compares LeaderMan vs. Servant Leader, saying that we need more Servant Leaders like Jesus and no more of the LeaderMan type.  The statement that shot the biggest dagger into my heart is this one:

LeaderMan:  Loves the idea of the Gospel, and the idea of The Church 

Servant Leader: Loves God and the actual individual people God brings across his path

You can read the entire list here.

I Need Your Help

To my fellow gospel ministers:

If you had 13 weeks to train a young man for ministry (knowing he will get more training later) what things would you be sure to cover? And what resources would you use?

It is all in my head and heart somewhere...I am having difficulty mapping it out and making it organized. I would hate the first 3 weeks being spent on me trying to figure out where we are going.

Here is what I have so far. I am wanting to sum it up as best I can. I have found five broad categories of ministry. Lead. Plead. Read. Bleed. And for lack of a better rhyming term...Breed. I want to teach a few principles of leadership--mostly that we are called to be a servant (Mt. 20:20-28). Here is a list so far:

Lead with gentleness (1 Pet. 3:16)
Lead with courage (Joshua 1)
Lead with humility (Phil. 2:3, 1 Pet. 5:5)
Lead with your life, authenticity (1 Thess. 2:8, 2 Tim. 3:10-11)
Lead with holiness, example (2 Tim. 2:22-26)
Lead with labor, suffering (2 Tim. 2:3)
Lead with passion, fervency (1 Pet. 5:1-5)
Lead with appropriate patience (1 Thess. 5:14)

There needs to be some teaching about where leadership comes from; this will probably be covered in our discussion of Matthew 20.

What would you add? What resources would you use? How would you teach these things? Obviously modeling them in my own life. How would you put this young man in situations where these graces would be brought out and cultivated?

Later I will discuss--Plead, Read, Bleed, and....Oh, I really need another name for this...Breed.

UPDATE: I think I have figured out how to avoid the word "breed" as a category. The concept of reproducing can fall under a category in leadership. One of the categories will now be "lead to be replaced".

Borrowed Light: Today in Blogworld 03/10-11

Trevin Wax discusses the influence of Calvinism at Southern Seminary (SBTS). I particularly like this paragraph: "Perhaps there are some who fit the category of “hyperactive” Calvinists - students who are still in the proverbial “cage-stage” of Calvinism and who are actively seeking to convert all other Christians to their doctrinal viewpoint. The problem with the hyperactive strain of Calvinism is not theology, but sin, particularly the sin of pride and arrogance. It is the same sin that lies at the root of Church Growth controversies, when a young pastor enthralled with Bill Hybels proceeds to divide a church by throwing out all hymns and organs. Immaturity and selfishness comes in all forms, not merely Calvinist."

As one that has unbelieving family members (most are "nominal" at best) this post by Chris Daukas is phenomenal: Jesus, Meet My Unbelieving Family Members

Marc Backes has an excellent point on leadership. He, like myself, spent years devouring books by leadership gurus. He has came to the same conclusion that I have: "Put the man made leadership laws down and get on your knees before Jesus and ask Him to break you and mold you. Man doesn't make a leader. Jesus breaks a leader."

I am so happy that Ligonier Ministries is now blogging. Check out their most recent interview with Sinclair Ferguson. (I really want to start reading Ferguson's stuff, any suggestions on where I should start?)

Can you really develop a sermon in 279 words? One pastor is going to apply the Gettysburg Principle. I actually think I am going to try this. If I can make a sermon this concise then I probably "get" the text. (HT: Abraham Piper)